Alan: I'm a bit puzzled here. First, is there really much in
common between teachers (at least what they say in the classroom, as
opposed to one-on-one career counseling or some such) and doctors or
psychotherapists? If teachers are to be treated as similar to doctors
and psychotherapists, then presumably the government would have vast
authority not only over public education and publicly-funded private
education, but purely privately funded private education as well, yes?
I would have thought that professional-client speech restrictions,
whatever First Amendment problems they might provide, are at least
separate from the mainstream of First Amendment doctrine, and the speech
of teachers is well within that mainstream (though subject to
restriction in some measure when the teachers are government employees).
Am I mistaken on that?
Second, why is "analyzing regulations of" "sermons from the
pulpit" "under a free speech paradigm" not "going to work"? Even if
ministers have extra rights under the Free Exercise Clause (which I
doubt), surely they have Free Speech Clause rights, and rights that are
the same as those of other speakers, no?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brownstein, Alan
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:03 PM
> To: hamilto...@aol.com; Law & Religion issues for LawAcademics
> Subject: RE: Bowman v. U.S.
>
> Marci has to be right here. Deciding what is speech for first
amendment purposes
> has to involve more than just the fact that an activity involves a lot
of talking.
> Sermons from the pulpit are talking, so is the practice of
psychotherapy, most of
> what lawyers do, and a lot of what doctors do. Analyzing regulations
of all these
> activities under a free speech paradigm isn't going to work.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 4:51 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Bowman v. U.S.
>
> While speech is involved in the classroom, career preparation is more
involved
> than just speech. The state is not simply handing out funds for the
sheer joy of
> learning or enriching discourse. The state funding of ministers or
rabbis for that
> matter is a direct and knowing benefit to religious institutions.
That is different
> from the abstract treatment of learning as nothing but a discourse of
speech.
> Marci
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Volokh, Eugene
> Sender: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> ReplyTo: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Sent: May 4, 2009 7:41 PM
> Subject: RE: Bowman v. U.S.
>
> What exactly is it about government-funded education directed at
> future careers that keeps it from being "pure speech"? It presumably
> wouldn't just be the government funding, since that was at issue in
> Rosenberger as well. I take it the theory must be that "education" is
> somehow more than just "pure speech," in constitutionally significant
> ways. But why, especially when we're talking about education that
> basically just involves talking, rather than science labs, football
> games, and the like?
>
> Marci Hamilton writes:
>
> > In any event, this is not pure speech -- it is government funding
> education directed
> > at future careers.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
forward the
> messages to others.
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
forward the
> messages to others.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
forward the
> messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
